RayC

The onus is on you/ Dr Coleman to supply a credible argument to support the contention. Let's just say I remain unconvinced.

So neither flu or COVID are viruses. What are they then? Deadly bacteria? What caused the jump in the number of excess deaths worldwide in 2020? So the 'non-virus' known as 'Spanish flu' managed to inflect 2/3rds of the world's population as a result of a combination of the trauma caused by WW1 (among non- combatans also?), aspirin becoming freely available (overuse causing death?) , radio (waves? messaging? only in the US?) and medical malpractice (worldwide?) And I'm the one spouting nonsense!!! Rightio.

So for the sake of argument, I'll assume that your contention that COVID is a sub-type of the existing influenza virus is correct. Do you agree that the vaccines available in 2019 seemingly offered no protection against this variation? If so, then there was a lesson to be learned from history. The last time a sub-type of the influenza virus caused widespread inflection on a worldwide scale was in 1918. This resulted in 20 million deaths (conservative estimate). These facts hardly support your idea that governments' (initial) responses were disproportionate.

What is this 'proper' Brexit? What exactly should have been done differently?

@Bkk Brian @richard_smith237 You have addressed points to me but apologies, I will not give you the courtesy of a direct reply as I am spending far too much time on this board (and this thread in particular) and am drawing a line under things now. Happy New Year to you both.

I mentioned yesterday that I would prefer to keep our exchanges civil, but you have obviously decided to decline my offer. Do you have any idea what a gilt (bond) is and how they work? It's a rhetoric question. Fortunately, the House of Commons has produced a simple guide. I suggest you educate yourself by reading it https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-are-gilts-a-simple-guide/#:~:text=When the government needs to,when the gilt 'matures'. I have addressed each and every one of your direct questions. You have been extremely selective in addressing mine, and introduced additional information into the discussion which, being generous, is tangential. I assume that you do so in order to deflect attention away from your lack of knowledge. I'm done providing 'free' education to you. Another charitable person will have to take up the slack. Alternatively, you can pay for it. Warning: The provider may have to impose VAT. Happy New Year.

Do you a source/ links? I can only assume that 'Private schools' includes religious schools and the like which are funded by the state.

I am not being callous and the reason I 'ignored' this issue is simply because I overlooked it due to the sheer volume of notifications which I am receiving. If a child is unable to be educated within the state system for whatever reason, then the state should finance the cost of educating the child i.e. the parents should not have to pay

What would have been fair is if you hadn't taken my comment out of context, but instead had included the preceding paragraph of the exact same comment, namely: "The imposition of VAT is a mess. Imo very few sectors e.g. food, sanitary products should be VAT exempt." Puts a whole different complexion on things, doesn't it?

I think that this is called self-incriminating evidence.

Your final paragraph summarise nicely what precedes it. The figure could be £300bn, £400bn, whatever. As I explained, in itself it is meaningless. Simply not correct. UK bonds - including 10-year gilts - mature and are re-issued at regular intervals. Falling interest rates obviously reduce the cost of borrowing. I couldn't agree more. I'll leave you to get on with it.

It is not a crass comment, simply a truism. You have your opinion, I have mine. I doubt that either of us is going to convince the other You're correct. I used the wrong term. Nevertheless, my point remains the same. As you say, the monies raised will not be 'ring fenced'. Why should they be? As I said elsewhere, the effects of this change are unknown and estimates - whether low or high - rest on even more tenuous than usual.

The recruitment of 6500 teachers is a separate goal (largely) unrelated to the imposition of VAT on private schools. Whether you look at the components individually or in totality, the answer (of sorts) is once again provided by the IFS: The effect(s) of this change are difficult to predict and will only become clear in the medium to long term. Estimates vary. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/independent-schools-proposed-vat-changes/ (Note: I can't claim to have read much of this report) Yes, you can. They are not mutually exclusive. In any event, November 2024 figures show that borrowing was the lowest for that month since 2021 and that interest paid was the lowest since November 2019. This suggests that borrowing is either 1) under control or 2) it hasn't been under control for the past 3 - 5 years. I still don't understand what point you trying to make - or more specifically what conclusion(s) you have arrived at. Are you suggesting that the current level of borrowing is unsustainable? That the UK is about to default on its' repayments? I also disagree with two of your assumptions. There may be well be a point where an increase in the marginal rate of taxation ceases to increase the amount of revenue generated. However, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that point has been reached in the UK now. By any number of criteria e.g. marginal/ absolute tax rates, etc. the UK is below the majority of the G7 nations and the vast majority of EU members in terms of the tax burden imposed on its' residents. If Reeves wants to increase tax, she has plenty of scope to do so. Whether tax rises are necessary and/or desirable now are two completely different questions. Secondly, I also disagree with your contention that, "The more you borrow, the higher debt servicing costs rise, the less you have to spend on Public Services". Firstly, this statement takes no account of interest rates. If they fall then the cost of servicing the debt MAY also fall. Secondly, notwithstanding the effect of interest rates, as things currently stand, there is no reason why Reeves could not borrow more to finance public sector spending. There is obviously a point where the markets would become jittery and this would become more difficult, but there is no reason to suppose that point has been reached. Once again, whether increased borrowing is necessary and/or desirable is a totally different question.

I don't know about each and every country mentioned and lack the time and, frankly, inclination to research them further. However, I do have some knowledge of the Belgian system - albeit based on the situation in the noughties and 2010s - and would make the following points: 1. Private education forms a very small proportion of the education system. Generally speaking, the independent schools are geared towards the needs of transient ex-pat executives who want their children to follow their a curriculum consistent with their home country e.g. the American school follows a US high school curriculum, the British school teaches a GCSE curriculum, etc. These curricula are obviously not available in a Belgian state school. 2. VAT is payable by commercial educational providers in Belgium More generally, the European Commission has launched proceedings against Germany and Poland - presumably test cases? - about VAT exemptions for private education providers. Maybe the EU is about to change direction?

Yes, education is a public good which is a reason in itself why it should be able to everyone. The benefits claimed are no justification for private education as they apply equally to state-funded education. Imo the fact that one has to pay for "highly quality education" is an argument against, rather than, for it. There is a large body of evidence to suggest that individuals acquire economic and social benefits from private education, less so that society as a whole does. I have no idea what the justification for the second paragraph might be. All the evidence suggests the exact opposite i.e. that inequality in society is increased due to private education Irrelevant given that we are no longer in the EU. The choice to 'go private' or not. OK. Fine. And? Why should private education be more diverse than public? Moreover, if this is true why is it a benefit? Surely all children should have the same opportunities? The first sentence applies equally to state funded education. Regarding the rest: Again for the individual perhaps. Not necessarily for society as a whole. What a bizarre title. Who knows is the answer to all three questions although I very much doubt that all 10,000 students will be affected one way or the other.

Perhaps there is a case for looking the criteria governing the charitable status of schools but that's another discussion. If it were 'class warfare' as you suggest then surely the elite public schools would be the first target? However, you state - correctly imo - that these elite schools will cope with this increase in costs. The average cost of sending a child to an independent day school is +/-£18k pa; the average cost for boarders is +/-£42k pa. To afford to pay this sort of money over 6 - 12 years must mean that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the parents are earning significantly more than the national median income of £37k before tax. I can only repeat again what I have said on many occasions previously. Parents should be free to pay for their children's education if they so wish. However, I see absolutely no reason why this group of parents should benefit from a tax loophole and, effectively be subsided by poorer parents for whom educating their kids privately is not an option.

😂 Talk about pot calling the kettle black!! This Labour government could announce that they've found a cure for cancer, discovered a way to keep the UK's temperature at a balmy 25° all year round with no side effects, found a way to turn lead into gold, etc, etc and there's no doubt that you'd still be on here complaining that the world's not yet perfect and that it's all the fault of the Labour government.

They could send their kids to a state school if they wanted to. It is their choice to go private. Spin it any way you want, this is a policy which closes a tax loophole and raises money for the Exchequer to spend on public services.

VAT is a tax where, as the name suggests, a levy is added to the value added during the production of goods and services. Private Education is a service and should therefore be st this tax. Whether VAT is considered a 'good' tax is not the point and off-topic. This change has nothing to do with satisfying a few "envious, bitter Liberals" - wealthy Liberals are likely to be among the group affected - and everything to do with equity, closing a tax loophole and raising much needed government revenue. So, yes Jonny. You're right about one thing at leas: It's not complicated; and it's a concept that Rachel from Accounts has seemingly grasped as well.

Which leaves £112bn for other capital projects. Let's see. 1. Possibly not 2. Disagree. 3a. Agree 3b. Unsure Fine. Good idea.

An extra 500 isn't going to make much difference one way or the other. You can quibble about the amount, but the UK was always going to have to pay a price for a settlement; a fact recognised by the last Tory government. I don't disagree with your statements but that is an altogether different 'black hole'. The UK is no different to almost every other major industrialised nation in having a huge national debt (the US's is $36tn!). If the debts were called in tomorrow, the world would be bankrupt. I disagree completely. What is essential is that we are able to finance the repayments on our debt. There is no reason why public spending cannot be enacted under current conditions. I don't understand your point?

Only 50% of independent schools are charitable, the other half are commercial organisations (Source: UK Parliament library). I'll heard nothing yet to convince me why such organisations should be exempted from VAT. I'd agree that the timing of the introduction of the tax in the middle of the school year is ill thought-out, but why would a government deliberately want to "cause maximum disruption and distress", not least to itself?

I think that it is the height of wishful thinking to believe that Reform have any more idea of how to improve productivity in the public sectors than either the Tories or Labour. Can you be more specific please. I just had a cursory glance at YouTube and there are no end of Cummings' videos. You asked for specific examples of projects and they were contained in the link which I provided. The total amount allocated for capital expenditure in the budget is £134bn. See the link in the previous post. I imagine that some of the money has been set aside for future investment e.g. for capital projects arising from the review of the NHS. It's not an insignificant sum but it only becomes a problem if repayments cannot be met which is why the market was concerned about Trusses' budget. Doubts about the ability of the current UK government to meet its' financial obligations do not currently exist. Indeed and I have never disputed the fact that tax cuts can generate growth. My point all along has been about timing and imo, for reasons outlined here and elsewhere previously, now is not the time for tax cuts. The indicators aren't great and the government's management and PR since it took office leave a lot to be desired, no denying that. The assumptions underlying the budget proposals are that spending will level out over the course of this parliament and growth will occur as a result of the front-loaded capital expenditure. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen.

We've enjoyed a robust but polite exchange of views up to now, so please don't patronise me or I'll reply in kind. I'm well aware that tax receipts from a particular source aren't ring-fenced. This report? https://www.adamsmith.org/news/tuition-tensions-labour-markets-and-education-taxes Even the author has doubts about his findings: Maxwell Marlow, Director of Research at the Adam Smith Institute and report author said: “There is very little evidence on what will happen if the Government imposes a tax on private education, because most countries have never tried it." So the truth is we just don’t know what will happen when VAT is charged on school fees". As an aside, I wonder if the Adam Smith Institute would argue against tax cuts, given that this report seems to suggest that increasing individuals' disposal income acts as a disincentive to work? I don't know where the figure of 6000 comes from? Are Labour (presumably) promising an extra 6000 teachers now? Is this as a result of the (presumed) closures of independent schools due to the VAT increase? (If so, presumably some of these teachers will transfer to the public sector) Which is good example of why increased public expenditure is needed. Yes, I know what an economic black hole is and no, I don't know its' exact size.

Why not? How can it be discussed and fixed if we don't know what the problems are? Agreed. True by definition. Public services contribute to the welfare of society and also act as enablers for the private sector. Without them society would not function. Every component of every public service provider has inefficiencies and layers of management which are unnecessary? A sweeping statement. It does make one wonder why successive governments over the last 50 years have been unable to significantly improve public sector productivity when improvements should be so easy to identify. Let's not pretend Labour have a monopoly on dishonest politicians. Remember a certain Mr. Johnson? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/09/what-is-the-national-wealth-fund-and-what-will-it-invest-in (in particular, the section entitled 'What will the NWF invest in?') On the one hand, you state with apparent absolute certainty that the effects of Labour's budget will result in "carnage" within six months, whilst on the other you excuse Trusses' disastrous mini-budget by stating that, "we don't know how it would have turned out" if she'd been given six-month's grace. The fact is that the UK economy couldn't have afforded six months more of Liz Truss: The country would have been bankrupt long before then; the financial markets would have seen to that. The fact that the coupon on UK 10-year gilts is now 4.64% - as opposed to 4.5% which was the rate two years ago - is completely irrelevant. The pertinent facts are that the UK bond market was in turmoil as a direct result of Trusses' mini-budget - panic didn't set in when 10-year gilt yields hit 4.5%, the yields hit 4.5% because panic had set in long before that milestone was hit. The difference in the market reaction to Labour's budget proposals is clear: The market is stable and has taken it in its' stride. A common theme throughout your posts is your belief in the need to cut taxes to stimulate growth. Can I suggest that you read the first section of the following link. The article was written in response to Trusses' budget but, if anything, it understates the reasons why cutting taxes now would be economically irresponsible, given that we have had two economically unjustified cuts to employee NI contributions since then. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/mini-budget-response (I'll pre-empt any possible objections based on political bias by pointing out that the IFS is considered to be neoliberal in its' outlook).